Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 69 yr old ex-tradesman), who has a passionate interest in the problems of newspapers along with their success in all their monetisation attempts made, on the web. For the "times are indeed, a changin", I feel. [17th of Aug, 2011 - Print media... More
View LookingConfident's Instablogs on:
  • Under The Jurisdiction Of The Roman Curia? I Don't Think So.

    From within an interesting Facebook thread and in commenting on the video below, I made a statement, that: There is what I feel is a 'major' mistake made (in the 1st 4 minutes of the video), and I'm wondering if any member can tell me what I feel that 'mistake' made, is? Facebook Thread:

    Martin Sørensen asks: "I'm getting very curious as to what is the major mistake made in the video."

    Well Martin... This is my 2nd attempt. My 1st on FB simply 'vanished' when my computer shut down mysteriously.

    The video:

    Ok, it is at the 3.00 minute mark, is where it begins.

    4) 'THE CITY OF DETROIT' is a device created by the Trustees and the Administrators, Guardians operating under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia - who have tricked the people into 'pledging' their property to be used as collateral, which has fraudulently converted the true Creditors into debtors reducing the true Creditors to the status of insolvent paupers having no rights.

    I feel that it's almost as good as disinformation of the kind that has spread so wide and far - and it has been so readily been accepted by all - when passed on from those considered as being "guru's" in the FREEdom activist area. I feel you will read this here, as a world 1st.

    Those words: "operating under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia"

    Under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia? I don't think so.

    The group's Admin Team leader Gary and I have discussed this a number of times and I am now more than convinced that this is so wrong and I'll try and explain why this is so.

    FICTIO -

    In a previous post I commented that ....... In regards to "Fictio" (or, the fiction of law), jurisdiction only comes from our own consenting to being the NAME - and that this (in itself), is so 'regular' a happening, these days. There's that need to have us CONsent to the NAME.

    Who is it that we are 'coerced' into consenting to-who do we have a need for them, to have us understand them? (Police, magistrates, men/women contracted to Council, Bank Card operators, men and women telephone operators/payment of accounts for Telcos, Power Company suppliers, etc.) Yes, they all have a need to get us to be 'the NAME'.

    All that operate this 'fiction', do so UNlawfully.

    This fact (in itself), has been hilighted by Anna von Reitz with (besides personage) "barratry" - the crime of knowingly bringing false claims into court.

    All corporations in the world are "registered" within Rome. As such, they all come under the vatican 'corporate' umbrella. The Holy SEE is the "Legal" owner of all the corporations. (Trusts.) All dead entities.

    As such (and, under this corrupt UNlawful 'system' of law that exists in the corporatised world that we are in), a corporation can only 'talk' with another corporation - such is the ('pretend' or, a 'discolouring' of the) law that those men or, women (as mentioned) 'acting' on behalf of the (corporate) Trusts involved, do need we (living flesh and blood men/women), to CONsent to being their (trust) NAME. Or, speak or 'give evidence on behalf of' this dead fiction Trust NAME.

    (See eg; here)

    [Beside a number of other matters] ... The Magistrate was clearly able to advise the 'witness' that he was giving 'evidence' on behalf of the corporation (the very NAME) and this advice went, unrebutted.

    It's clear I feel that whilst non-competent justices/judges (those court officials, administrative clerks, magistrates, etc) operating down in the lowly Statute level of a 'fiction world' jurisdiction that is described at best (and, for expediency), as doing so, all under the 'colour of law'...that can now be so easily be proven as being all UNlawful.

    Here's the 'kicker' - The 'Lawmaker' himself has said so, too. (Bare in mind that this blogpost started off under the premise that Trustees and Administrators of the corporate Trust constructs are "operating under the jurisdiction of the Roman Curia"?)

    And the 2IC (I feel) to Pope Francis in his presentation of the motu proprio (he's the Secretary for Relations with States) Abp. Dominique Mamberti has put it like this:

    .....,"One of the cornerstones of the system introduced by this law is constituted by the so-called rule of law, as a result of which administrative sanctions may be imposed only in cases defined by law."

    We live in most interesting times, we certainly do. The 'race' is on, with various 'factions' of the United Nations flexing their muscles.

    For mine, I'd be putting my money on the 1st ever Jesuit Lawmaker, that the world has seen. He (Francis) 'looks the goods', for mine.

    Always, only an opinion.


    Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia: Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow-Vorbeck
    Thirty years A Lawyer, she [claims she] has served as an International Services Agent and as a private attorney in service to his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and now, Pope Francis.

    Aug 16 6:24 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Carpe Diem - LOSE The NAME - WIN The GAME

    When Dean Hopkins (14 hrs · Perth) stated the pure GREED of Telstra to start a Facebook 'conversation', I joined in myself.

    "THE TELSTRA MONEY GRAB: Wanted to charge me an extra $2 per bill to send it in the post rather than by email....."

    Estie Esteban: "Don't even question, require of them. Let them know these are your wishes, and to respect them, as per the contract."

    My own reply just now:

    Interesting conversation, Dean and Estie ...

    < "Don't even question, require of them." >

    Yes. We must remember that in all of these contracts (including those supposedly with the ATO, local councils, Rego, Licence, Telcos, Power suppliers, even Home Loans, Bank Cards, etc), we are in fact, the 'living beneficiary' of that trust - and that we hold the 'power' if and whenever we ever decide to expose the NAME fraud to them, of the Trust.

    LOSE the NAME - WIN the GAME

    [And] That we are NOT the Trustee (not the NAME), not that ALL or, part CAPS NAME and that it is THEY who will do anything we request and all that we require of them ("I do NOT consent" to being that NAME/person), certainly in regards to any Late payment FEES, hidden charges or, whatever (including cancellation of a contract), and whenever we may wish to do so.

    CORPORATIONS don't "own" anyone. Unless we give them ownership?

    Hi I'm Estie.. I'm ringing re; the accnt # in the NAME of ESTIE ESTEBAN

    As Estie, you are the Living Beneficiary of their Trust.

    We, and by advising them that we are NOT that NAME and that we only maintain the account on behalf of that NAME and as such (and in being a living flesh and blood man/women), we will 'call the shots' on anything we wish to do with that account-certainly over any decision any living flesh and blood man/women who may be working within that 'dead fiction' corporation, who may want to try and tell us something different. As it is simply not their account, for them to do so.

    Carpe Diem

    "Live now":

    Always, only an opinion.


    Jul 04 8:37 PM | Link | 3 Comments
  • The 'Lawmaker' [The Pope] Has Said So.

    All CONtracted employees within the State Penalties Enforcement Registry of the (SEC Listed - see the link below) QUEENSLAND TREASURY CORP that collects unpaid fines and court-ordered penalties - are now acting UNlawfully.

    Certainly they are, since September 1st, 2013.

    People need to fully comprehend that no man/women from SPER can 'punish' anyone for not paying Tolls, Parking Fines, Speeding Tickets or, whatever.

    They cannot "Harm" us by suspending our driver Licence, at Law.

    Certainly if our/your earning capacity depends on holding a (this), corporate entity.

    If you have committed a crime (have, caused harm to another or, to another's property), you must then face a court of law and be tried for the alleged crime you are said to have committed. That's the law.

    If you do not consent to the jurisdiction of the corporations calling themselves government, then there's no crime committed.

    (No harm done to another person/property.)

    In the many social discussion groups over on Facebook ,etc we can quote Statutes and Acts until 'the cows come home'. And we do.

    Yet the fact is - that to most Australian men/women (and for others all over the world), they are not law.

    They only become law, if we (living men/women) consent to them being so, in a statute/magistrate court. (Courts, dealing in 'fiction'.)

    The same applies (in reverse) in any competent 'court of record' today, here in Australia. They (state Statutes and Acts), are not law.

    The courts are now in a maritime jurisdiction. They can't hear anything that is not law.

    In regards to Tolls, etc ... the same applies as it does to Council Rates or, any other matter that concerns 'Councils' and I'll tell you why.

    I have just gone to my 'notes' - titled, "COUNCILS - Defense"

    ....... If SPER [or, local Councils] feel that they get their "power" to act in any such way from Statutes or, Acts made by or, handed down to them by living men/women in a/the corporate government - then what if these same Statutes and Acts do not apply to the living flesh and blood man/women?

    Unless we consent to them doing/being so?

    With no consent given (to Statutes and Acts), where does that leave SPER?

    [Or, Councils with their Rates NOTICES?]

    No living flesh and blood man/women (contracted within corporate Government/s and or, councils - and or, in state govt/corporations, like SPER), can make a "law" over a fellow living flesh and blood man/women that is binding. (Let alone have these same living flesh and blood man/women dare punish another living man or, women.)

    This would clearly be slavery.

    We are all indeed slaves, should we (as living flesh and blood men/women) consent to any such Statutes or, Acts (that are only corporate rules), as being "law" (as they are not), and that should be clear to all.

    And the 'lawmaker' [the Pope] has said so. - We are just simply, not listening to the lawmaker.

    Is my own opinion.



    Jun 15 11:06 PM | Link | 4 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.